HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 8 2005DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
February 8, 2005
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Also Present:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS FOR 2005 (AB2005 -084)
Fleetwood stated these are only half of the applications submitted. The
committee will review this half of the applications, and take a formal vote on them
all in two weeks.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, submitted the three -year
schedule of major planning division projects (on file). Now, the critical areas
ordinance update is late and they are out of compliance with the Growth
Management Act (GMA). The Bellingham urban fringe plan is also late. The City of
Bellingham is out of compliance because it doesn't have an adequate land supply to
meet its projected population, and there are many other items.
McShane asked if the City has reached the conclusion that it doesn't have
adequate land supply. Goodwin stated everyone recognizes there is a deficit, but
they don't know how big the deficit is. The City is not out of compliance unless
someone challenges it. They are all aware the City missed the deadline. The City
and County passed a resolution saying it will attempt to get it done by July 1.
The County Planning Commission is booked through the July. Staff is 100
percent booked. Any comprehensive plan items docketed means they need to
schedule additional Planning Commission meetings, add additional staff, or shift
some of the additional projects further back. They may not get to the critical areas
ordinance (CAO) or urban fringe plan when they hoped, or will have to push the
docket back. Anything the Council adds will require a shift of resources.
Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.10.060 has criteria the Council will use to
determine whether or not to docket an item. First, if an amendment is in a city
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
urban growth area (UGA), the County will consult with the city. Second, if an
amendment is removing designating agriculture, forest, or mineral land, the Council
will consider the cumulative impact to the loss of resource land. The third criterion
is whether Council has already set a date for future consideration of the item.
She referenced Council packet pages 110 and 111 for all items.
DOCKET # 2005 -A: Bellingham UGA Expansion
Goodwin read the description listed on Council packet page 110 and showed
the location on a map of the area. The area is generally located north of
Bellingham between the end of the Guide Meridian and James Street. It is to the
west of King Mountain and surrounding the top of King Mountain. The property is
east of the existing UGA. It is not part of the five -year review or UGA. The
proposal is to bring the property into the UGA.
Brenner asked if it would even out their UGA a bit. Goodwin stated it gets
closer to evening it out some.
Brenner asked if this touches the UGA to the west. Goodwin stated it fits into
a notch of the UGA. The other part of the UGA is further to the west.
Brenner stated it tends to make the UGA more irregular than regular. She
asked why they are going farther north. Goodwin stated that is the proposal the
County received. It's up to the Council whether or not it goes forward with the
proposal.
McShane asked about the area to the west. Goodwin described the map.
Part of the property is in a seismic hazard area, which also covers a good part of
the city UGA. There are no wetlands delineated in the area.
Fleetwood asked if the property includes the crown of King Mountain.
Goodwin stated it does. An area nearby the property in this proposal is already at a
suburban density. That is part of the reason for the proposal. The property would
be developed at an urban density as opposed to a density of two houses per acre.
Fleetwood asked the density of urban residential, mixed use. Goodwin stated
the density is a minimum of six units per acre and a maximum of ten units per
acre, with the transfer of development rights. If brought into the UGA, the staff will
fold it into the urban fringe plan and find areas where the density could be higher.
Fleetwood asked if there is a possibility of a density close to 1,000 units.
Goodwin stated that would be close.
McShane asked if the area south of Smith Road and west of the Guide
Meridian is being considered as part of the urban fringe area. Goodwin stated it is
in the five -year review area. If docketed, this would be included.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane asked about the area west of the airport. Goodwin stated that is an
urban fringe area, but is not proposed for adding to the UGA. This area is within
the Bellingham urban fringe subarea. In theory, the County will look at this area as
part of urban fringe, but not necessarily as an expansion of UGA.
McShane asked the purpose of the urban fringe. Goodwin stated the urban
fringe includes UGA's and surrounding rural lands. The urban fringe is intended to
be an area that provides a buffer or eventually becomes part of the Bellingham
UGA. The urban fringe is to make sure uses are compatible. Don't let it get
chopped up into parcels that could not later be developed at an urban density. A
density of rural residential, two units per acre (RR2) is not exactly what they want
in there.
Fleetwood asked who established the five -year review process. Goodwin
stated the County Council established the five -year review process in 1997. The
decision was a ten -year joint process between the City and County planning
commissions and councils.
Fleetwood asked if it is important that the County or City has not proposed
this area for review. Goodwin stated it's relevant, but the owner has talked with
the City as well. If docketed, the City and County would both discuss it.
Fleetwood asked if the Hitz property on the Hannegan Road is in the five -
year review area. Goodwin stated she believes it is.
Brenner asked if this property is in one person's ownership. Goodwin stated
she believes so.
Brenner asked if they have heard from anyone in the surrounding areas.
Goodwin stated they haven't yet. She would notify the neighboring property
owners and go through a full public process if docketed.
Fleetwood asked for staff's recommendation. Goodwin stated it makes sense
to look at it since they're already looking at the urban fringe and it's already zoned
RR2.
Fleetwood asked if it is an added big burden. Goodwin stated they are
looking at it already.
Ralph Black, Alliance Properties, stated he has been in touch with the
neighbors to the west. He is currently under contract with a number of them. He
anticipates having a contract with all, so he would eventually acquire all the
property to the west. His vision is to go forward with the urban village concept.
The key has been acquiring the large King Mountain property to make it fit. Part of
the proposal is to have a large park on the top. He has been in contact with the
City. There is some strong support that this does make sense. There are services
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
on three sides of the project. If it goes forward, the project can be brought into
productivity fairly quickly. He can take densities and bring the project online in a
reasonable amount of time. Infrastructure is there or nearby. The project at this
point seems fairly well received by the City and County.
McShane stated that over the next couple weeks, they should have
communication from the City saying that it is interested in this area. He is inclined
to recommend docketing this item with the caveat that they have some
communication with the City saying that it is interested as well. Goodwin stated
the Planning Director for the City said the project has merit. She hasn't talked to
the City Council.
McShane moved to recommend docketing this item for consideration.
Motion carried unanimously.
DOCKET # 2005 -B: Blaine UGA Reduction
Goodwin read the description on Council packet page 110 and indicated the
location on the map. The proposal is for all of the Blaine UGA except a small area
next to the city.
Brenner asked the zoning of the houses under construction at Loomis Trail
golf course. Goodwin stated the zoning is urban residential, four units per acre
(UR -4), which allows golf courses and housing. That area is currently served by
water and sewer. The area has quite a few houses now. The rest of it is fairly
rural. There are a fair number of houses along Blaine Road. At Sunday Harbor
there is an older trailer park with sewer. The rest is mostly five -acre tracts.
Fleetwood asked if it is more difficult to rescind a UGA. Goodwin stated they
can rescind a UGA. The only difficulty is property owners have their expectation of
development taken away.
Fleetwood asked if the Council has to justify public benefit and changed
circumstance, like a rezone. Goodwin stated the Council would have to. The
Council could also say there was a mistake in designating an area a UGA.
Goodwin explained the area on the map. The northern part does not have
agricultural soils. There are some agricultural soils along Lincoln Road. There are
some seismic hazard areas along California Creek and east of the city. There are
some steep bluffs in the city limits and along the shoreline of Semiahmoo Drive.
There are a tremendous number of wetlands in the Blaine UGA. There are also a
wildlife conservation area and an aquifer recharge area. The aquifer recharge area
doesn't recharge a drinking water source. A fair bit of the soils allow infiltration to
a clay layer. There are two large streams in the area. They also feed into the
Drayton Harbor area, which is a shellfish area.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fleetwood asked where the UGA is to the east. Goodwin stated the only UGA
is the 160 acre small piece. If docketed, analysis would show that not all of it
would be removed. A rather large parcel was annexed in the mid- 1990's. That's
where most of the growth would go.
Brenner asked if Blaine would meet its population projection if this proposal
went through. Goodwin stated a newspaper quoted a City planner who said they
probably could. The City manager was also quoted as saying there are other
reasons to keep those areas in the UGA. The City is doing it's own analysis.
Brenner asked if the Council can postpone its decision until the City is done
with its comprehensive plan. Goodwin stated it can. The City would finish in
October and the County could look at it next year.
Fleetwood stated the logic was to consider the Bellingham change in concert
with the City of Bellingham's review. He asked if that same logic can be used for
Blaine. Goodwin stated the County recommendation would happen in September,
before the City has a chance to finish its comprehensive plan. It makes some sense
to do it simultaneously, but the County's schedule is ahead of the City's schedule.
Fleetwood asked the likelihood the area would be built out in one area.
Goodwin stated the majority is designated as a long -term planning area. The
Drayton Harbor area could not have water, sewer, or be platted. For the area to
the west, the County could designate it as a long -term planning area until the City's
planning is done.
Fleetwood asked if there would be any lost opportunity if the County waits
until next year. Goodwin stated there would not be lost opportunity. The Loomis
Trail area is already platted.
McShane stated the area to the west is currently not a long -term planning
area. Goodwin stated the point of Semiahmoo is not a long -term planning area.
The area south of Drayton Harbor is all a long -term planning area other than
Sunday Harbor.
McShane asked if the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District serves the area to
the west. Goodwin stated there is water along Semiahmoo Drive, but no sewer.
Geoff Menzies, Applicant, submitted information (on file) 988 W. Laurel Road,
Ferndale, and read his statement.
Brenner stated she likes considering this, but they must try to work with the
City. She has a problem with going forward before the City decides what it wants
to do with its comprehensive plan. If the County waits, nothing more would
develop. She asked if that would make a difference. Menzies stated that as long
as areas are designated in the UGA, there is an assumption that an area can
develop. Terry Galvin told him that the City of Blaine has enough area within the
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
existing city limit to handle Blaine's 20 -year growth. In addition, there is a history
of concerns with urbanization in the harbor. There is a lot of evidence for the
effects of urbanization and loss of forestry on shellfish beds. He is concerned about
there being more speculative investment over the course of a year. People will
have inflated ideas about that investment. It will be that much more difficult to
remove the UGA. Anyone can bring forward a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Anyone familiar with shellfish growing believes the entire UGA is a recipe for
disaster. It's time for discussion on the size of the UGA, which is the same size as
the existing city limits.
Brenner stated it sounds like nothing will change in that area regarding
densities before the Council makes some decisions. It's important that the County
work with the City. The City is considering pulling some of the areas out of the
urban growth area anyway. Menzies stated the zoning is at four units per acre,
pending sewer. People who buy property expect that services will be there. That is
a big difference in potential return, to a density of one unit per five acres. There
could be more parcelization into five -acre pieces and more development within this
area, which isn't compatible. It's more difficult to convert five -acre pieces to urban
density than ten -acre pieces.
Menzies continued to read his testimony about Blaine's density.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Menzies continued to state that it makes no sense to have a UGA of this
size. The question is whether the City is in compliance with updating it's
comprehensive plan, and if that's an issue for the Council to consider. Government
must take the long -term view on growth and impacts to things that can't be
recovered.
Lincoln Rutter, 8373 Semiahmoo Drive, stated they must look at the history
of the current situation rather than the UGA problem in Blaine. In 1996, the
County's UGA's were drawn before the Growth Management Hearings Board. The
judge in 1996 was appalled at the County's failure to apply growth management
principles. The County is supposed to project 20 years and no more. For Blaine,
the entire 20 -year projected population fits in the existing city limits. The entire
UGA is superfluous. In addition, critical areas should never have been included in
the UGA, which is a problem. People believe the original zoning applied to them.
It's a disservice to allow the mistaken impression to continue. The appeal that
overturned the 1996 decision was due to technicalities. Apply the principles of the
growth management act now. It's appropriate for the Council to take up this issue
now. The Loomis Trail area will continue to expand. There is an inordinate amount
of growth. There are 850 units for single family residential homes in the various
stages of approval in Blaine. In Birch Bay, there are over 1,000 units.
A speculative bubble in a real estate market is caused when the cost of
borrowing funds is less than real estate appreciation annually. Eight percent of all
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
houses in America in the last quarter were built by speculators. In Blaine, 850
homes are already being platted. The build out already approved for Semiahmoo is
something like 2,400 units. They've only built about 560 units. There are 1,900
units already available in Semiahmoo. The UGA is draconian in size and contrary to
the law. The Council must fix the expectations in the minds of the people who live
in an area that is rural. The land speaks for itself. If they live in a rural area, it
doesn't matter that property owners have other expectations. The City of Blaine, if
left to its own device, will not fix this problem. The City hasn't done any of its work
on time.
Brenner asked if Mr. Rutter is saying there will be more land platted if the
Council doesn't do this now. Rutter stated that is what he is saying. There are 650
acres that are cleared and ready for development. If they wait another year, there
will be much more development. On Semiahmoo spit, 55 luxury condos are to be
built with unit prices over $1 million. That is in addition to the 72 duplexes that are
supposed to be built, also with unit prices over $1 million. That represents 120
multimillionaires that would mysteriously appear. That's an irrational expectation,
brought about by speculation because the cost of borrowing money is less than
appreciation. It's easy to fantasize about 120 millionaires showing up in Blaine.
Brenner asked the zoning at Semiahmoo. Goodwin stated the zoning is UR -4
if there is sewer. There isn't sewer, so the density is held at one house per five
acres (R5A). It is a short term planning area. If they can figure out how to get
sewer, they can develop at UR -4. Getting sewer is the challenge. The 850 units
Mr. Rutter referred to is in the city limits, and it's a long -term plan. Those units
aren't proposed to be built this year. Only in the county, there is building at Loomis
Trail Golf Course. That's already platted.
Wayne Schwandt, Trillium Corporation, stated that in the short -term urban
growth area, the amount of cleared land is about 230 acres. The number Mr.
Rutter used included all the area in the short -term UGA. There are 600 acres in
that area, but only half of it is now in the county under the R5A zone.
In a long -term UGA, Trillium owns some property. Trillium is not necessarily
opposed to the area staying in the long term UGA. There are issues there. The
property is about half wetland. Sewer needs to be addressed. The best long -term
solution for sewerage will be an agreement between the City of Blaine and the Birch
Bay Water and Sewer District. They're not ready to do that yet. It's an appropriate
area for long -term consideration.
To the west of Semiahmoo is the spit. Trillium has development plans for
that property. In the past, Trillium submitted the Cannery Hill planned unit
development (PUD). Some of it was in the UGA. A portion is in the city limits.
That project included a second golf course at Semiahmoo. They are reviewing that
project now, and it doesn't include a golf course. It would be a PUD. That is an
appropriate place for a PUD for Blaine and northwest Whatcom County. Water is
available. The issue of sewer needs to be resolved. There will have to be technical
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
and financial analysis. Leave the land as it is now. Allow the City to continue its
analysis. At this stage, don't draw conclusions out of numbers. There will be a lot
of information that will come out. Now is not the time to make this major decision.
The original master plan for Semiahmoo isn't what has happened in the past
25 years because market conditions have changed. If there is a difficulty with
Semiahmoo from a GMA perspective, it's that it's not dense enough. The types of
development coming out now, which are the higher -end units, address a market
opportunity that hasn't existing in the past. The 55 units are significantly fewer
than the original master plan for that site. The area for those condos is called Villas
at the Inn. It's the area between the Beach Walker condominiums and the resort.
Trillium has a process in place that it has relied on to prepare its plans for
the future. There is an appropriate review going on with the City of Blaine that
Trillium will be a part of. To get in front of that process now doesn't make sense,
especially if one of the goals is the environmental health of Drayton Harbor. That
particular area doesn't drain to Drayton Harbor. The area to the east does drain to
Drayton Harbor. It is the right type of planning area to consider potential impacts
to Drayton Harbor.
McShane asked if there is no moratorium associated with a clearing, based
on a timber harvest done without meeting current critical areas under the County
rules. Schwandt stated there is not. The questions about the timber harvest
practices were answered. The permits were reinstated and the work was done.
Portions of that cleared area are in conservation. They can't be converted back for
some period into the future. There is a six -year constraint.
Jan Hanson, 1167 Harrison, Blaine, stated she was on the Blaine City Council
when the UGA limits were set. They probably didn't know what they were doing.
They weren't fully aware of the long -term import of the lines they drew. It makes
sense to revise the UGA.
She asked what is to keep landowners in the Drayton Harbor area from
getting together to develop. There is urgency for approving this item. Put it on the
docket.
Rutter stated the record will show that the short -term and long -term
terminology is not part of the growth management terminology. It resulted in
Whatcom County's case when they decided it would be difficult to reinstate the
property delineations. They allowed the County to come up with short -term and
long -term areas. That delineation doesn't work. In Birch Bay, long -term land has
been flipped into instant PUD's all over the place. People who approved the PUD's
didn't understand the long -term planning areas. The staff at the Planning and
Development Services Department routinely issues building permits in long -term
areas.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner asked if that is correct. Goodwin stated that is not correct. The
short -term planning areas are short -term. The long -term planning areas are long-
term. A subdivision plat cannot be approved in a long -term planning area without a
County Council ordinance converting the area to a short -term planning area. The
area Mr. Rutter just talked about came to the County Council, which passed an
ordinance changing the area from long -term to short -term. Staff doesn't have that
ability to change. Staff, the Hearing Examiner, and the County Council all approved
it because the area met all the criteria for a short -term planning area. It was
adjacent to urban development, had water and sewer, and was in- filled up to the
edge. The purpose was not to keep those areas long -term forever, but until the
deficiency causing them to be long -term area has been addressed. In Birch Bay,
there was an issue of water availability in 1997 that has since been resolved.
McShane asked if the short -term and long -term planning area designations
are a zoning or Comprehensive Plan designation. Goodwin stated they are set up in
the zoning ordinance. They are amended as a zoning process. They are an
appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. It is not subject to the annual docketing
process.
McShane stated it seems that the designations are meaningless. Goodwin
stated they are not. There are specific criteria in the Comprehensive Plan for
converting an area from long -term to short -term.
McShane asked if an area that does not have sewer should be designated
long -term. Goodwin stated the two are tied together. If sewer is available up to
the property line, there is urban development to the property line, the land supply
analysis has been done, and there is a need for it, then the property can be
converted to a short -term planning area. Sewer cannot be extended into a long-
term planning area. The area would have to be converted to a short -term planning
area, which requires County Council approval.
Fleetwood moved to recommend docketing to the full Council. He is
inclined to look at something that reduces the UGA somehow. Blaine is in the midst
of a process. If the Council dockets this item next year, there won't be harm other
than harm to the expectations of speculators. If there isn't going to be harm in the
next year, and because staff is overburdened, he will vote against the motion.
Brenner asked if the Council still has to approve property in the short -term
planning area that is zoned UR -4 and has sewer. Goodwin stated the Council
approves a subdivision. It does not approve sewer extensions. Property within the
Birch Bay Water and Sewer District's boundary, zoned UR -4, and is short -term, the
district can extend the sewer.
McShane stated he's worried about a resource protection issue for the whole
area. He's sensitive to the City, which wants time to look at this. There are
important critical issues. He's not worried about the Drayton Harbor long -term
area. Nothing is going to happen in there. He's confident that wetland regulations
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
will protect the critical areas. Someday, there will be some sort of land
development on the land to the west. It won't stay rural. He's concerned about
the water drainage issues out there. He learned a lot from the Geo- Engineers
reports for those land clearing areas. It's a significant issue. Staff has a workload
he must consider, also. Wait for Blaine to go through its process. Take a good
hard look at it next year.
Brenner asked if the Council can change the proposal. She wants to change
the short -term areas to long -term, and not have to worry about sewer. Goodwin
stated the Council can do that as a zoning amendment on the zoning docket in
June. It's not a Comprehensive Plan item. If the Council dockets this, the outcome
could be that the request is premature, and staff can recommend that switch. They
would still need to go through all the staff work to consider this docket item. The
answer is no, not by this process.
Brenner stated that if it doesn't make any difference, and there is a window
of opportunity, she will agree with waiting. She asked when would be the soonest
that the Council would get to it if she supports the request. Goodwin stated the
normal procedure is for it to come to the Council on or about November. With the
docket this year, they may have to consider it along with the urban fringe or critical
areas ordinance. It could be a full year before they consider it, and they won't get
the 2005 docket done until mid -2006. If the Council dockets all of these proposals,
they might not be done for a long time. If the Council doesn't docket it, it will come
before the Council again this time next year. At that time, it could draw it out
another year. Normally it takes about a year from the time the Council dockets the
item to the time the Council approves it.
Brenner stated she wants to make sure this gets done the same time the City
of Blaine does its analysis. She will support the amendment.
McShane stated there are a lot of things to consider. How he considers these
final growth boundaries will make a big difference once he looks at the critical areas
ordinance. He has some timing issues that are a problem. This is something that
should be looked at next year, and it should be a high priority once the City of
Blaine is done and the critical areas ordinance is done.
Fleetwood stated he agreed with Councilmember McShane.
Brenner asked when the Council will adopt the critical areas ordinance.
Goodwin stated they hope the Council will adopt it by June. It could be stretched
out through the summer.
Brenner asked if the Council will adopt the critical areas ordinance before it
looks at this amendment. Goodwin stated she hoped so.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Brenner in favor.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
DOCKET # 2005 -C: Lynden UGA Reduction
Fleetwood read the description of this item on Council packet page 110.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, explained the location on the maps. The five
acres are designated in the urban growth area, but only a small portion is zoned
urban residential, medium density. The rest is zoned agriculture right now.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Fleetwood asked if the applicant is the present owner of the property who
currently uses the property for agricultural purposes. Aamot stated he is. The
applicant hopes to segregate the home site.
Fleetwood asked if the City of Lynden is aware of the request. Aamot stated
it is. He sent the City notice, but it has not commented.
McShane asked if the Agricultural Preservation Committee commented.
Aamot stated he doesn't believe they had a problem with it.
The area is in an aquifer recharge area. There is a habitat conservation area
along the creek, which is the reason for the 100 -foot buffer. There is a variety of
fish species, including coho, chum, chinook, cutthroat, and steelhead in the creek.
The majority is within the 100 -year floodplain. The staff doesn't have a problem
with the Council initiating this item.
Lesa Starkenburg - Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, stated she represents
the applicant, Gerb DeBoer. The property is one legal lot. Most of it is actively
used for farming. Mr. DeBoer is interested in selling the property. A farmer who is
looking for a field does not want to pay for the value of a nice home that may be on
the property. Mr. DeBoer's home is along the side of the current parcel. In 2001,
the Council adopted an ordinance allowing a farmer to divide off a residence and up
to three acres with a restriction on the balance of the property saying there can be
no more homes placed on the property. Mr. DeBoer is interested in pursuing that
option. However, there is a problem with the zoning. Part of the property is zoned
urban residential mixed use, six units per acre (URM -6). Mr. DeBoer has to leave
at least five acres because it is not served by public water and sewer. However,
under the agricultural zone, he can only leave a maximum of three acres. There is
no way to reconcile the two. To keep the portion of the property in agriculture,
they must either annex into the city or do a rezone to agriculture.
One would have to run a sewer around Fishtrap Creek to serve the property.
The property to the east is already developed. The incentive to develop this
property as part of the urban growth area is not there. This area is best used for
agriculture. There are development constraints. The area is inundated with water
from Fishtrap Creek and the Nooksack River.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Consider a zoning change to the zoning text to charge a lesser fee to
someone who is rezoning to agriculture for a particular purpose. She asked for a
fee waiver for this application. The public interest is served by this application.
The density would be reduced by one home.
Fleetwood moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
DOCKET # 2005 -D: Nooksack UGA Modifications
Aamot explained the location on the map and aerial photo. The confluence of
Sumas River and Breckinridge Creek is on the area proposed to be deleted. There
are agricultural land uses in the area as well as residential uses and the City of
Nooksack.
The area to add is agricultural now. The river meanders through the site.
Removing the portion would create a donut hole in the urban growth area. The site
to add to the urban growth area is designated agriculture right now. It is overlain
with agricultural protection overlay soils. The majority of the site to be removed
has agricultural protection overlay soils.
The site to be removed has seismic hazard areas, a pipeline, and some
floodplain. It is partially within a wellhead protection area for a short -plat to the
north. The site to add also has seismic hazard areas and is mostly in the floodplain.
It is not within a wellhead protection area. The zoning code provides for automatic
docketing if a City applies for the amendment.
Roland Harper, Sehome Planning, stated he represents the City of Nooksack.
The City talked about the donut hole issue. About a half dozen property owners
control the land in all of the urban growth area. There are limited powers that
control the land supply. More than one property owner in this area between the
two creeks are not interested in developing. They are actively using the land for
agriculture. Another property owner has approached the City because he is
interested in developing the property. The City came up with the idea to do a
trade. There are five acres owned by the school district to the west of the city,
which are for future ball fields. Take that out of the equation, and 26 will be added
and 24 will be taken away.
The idea to work with the donut hole was to expand the area that Nooksack
would consider removing from its UGA all the way to South Pass Road. An
expanded area includes a raspberry farm owned by the Pike family. It would add
over 40 acres to the over -20 acres they are already removing. That is not in the
proposal, but the City Council is in favor of it. He asked if, in the course of the
process, they can revise the area to be removed from the UGA and consider
additional replacement areas.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Goodwin stated that is possible. They consider what is docketed and other
alternatives that are more logical. If it makes sense, they will bring it forward.
Docketing is automatic.
Brenner stated a concern is that there will still be the city and urban growth
area on three sides, which won't lend itself to agricultural use. She's not convinced
about this proposal, but she will let it go.
Fleetwood moved to docket the whole area, including the proposed
expanded areas.
Motion carried unanimously.
DOCKET # 2005 -E: Columbia Valley /Kendall UGA Modifications
McShane stated he must recuse himself from the discussion.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember McShane left the room.)
Goodwin read the description and explained the location of the proposal on
the map. The Comprehensive Plan says they must preclude additional commercial
zoning until the small town commercial district is fully developed and a land supply
study shows a need for additional commercial land. The proposal is to strike that
sentence and allow commercial in Columbia Valley, rather than at the highway.
Geo- hazard areas and steep slopes are on either side of the area, which itself
is flat. Almost the entire area has agricultural protection overlay soils, although it is
mostly subdivided with houses and there is not a lot of farming out there. There
are not significant wetlands in the area. They are to the west. It is all in an aquifer
recharge area. Almost the entire site is in a groundwater wellhead protection area.
The proposal is to put 25 acres of general commercial in the middle of the property.
The Mount Baker Highway is at the south of the site. Now, Kendall has small town
commercial zoning. The school, gas station, and fire station are there. There is not
a lot of commercial development. There are several vacant parcels. The question
is whether they want the commercial area at the highway or at this location, where
people live. The study mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan has not happened.
The applicant says it makes more sense to have an integrated project with
commercial within the residential subdivision instead of having the residents get in
their car and drive two miles to the highway. Urban residential zoning allows a
small neighborhood store, but not a larger commercial facility.
Fleetwood asked if the area must incorporate. Goodwin stated it doesn't
have to. It is not a provisional UGA. Columbia Valley was made into a UGA around
2000. Policies in the Comprehensive Plan encourage incorporation when financially
feasible. At this point, the Columbia Valley is low income with no tax base. It
would not be feasible for some time.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Don Kehrer, 748 Marine Drive, stated he represents the applicant. The idea
is to develop a planned unit development with residential homes and some
commercial development. The area badly needs community services. There has
been some limitations. There are concerns about congestion on the highway if
there is a grocery store. There are access issues with the State. The small town
commercial area now is at the south end of the UGA. It's not a central location for
businesses serving the community. It's on a busy highway at an intersection. It
doesn't make a lot of sense for that area to develop as a town center. The area in
the proposal is on a straight stretch of an arterial with no intersections. It is
centrally located around the residential areas. It is intended to serve the people of
the community. The small town commercial area now is good, but it's more for the
motoring public. The community needs an area away from the highway
intersection. Twenty -five acres will provide sufficient land for a grocery store and
other services. There has been some interest on the part of the school district to
move the school up there. The fire district and community association are
interested in that location also. This is an idea of shifting the commercial center of
the UGA. This is a better location. They can explore that more fully before the land
is committed to other uses. It's time to look at the overall planning for the UGA.
Rob Staveland, Aiki Homes, stated he is the developer. He will put in a
proposal for a planned unit development (PUD) in the next few months. They've
done a traffic study already as if there were going to be a grocery store. The study
showed minimal impacts on the highway. The State Department of Transportation
(DOT) is amenable to this site. The DOT is hesitant about commercial development
along the highway because there are already numerous accesses dangerously
placed. A grocery store would have to use an existing driveway, not a highway, for
access.
The site in question is within walking distance of the entire Columbia Valley
area. The existing small town commercial area is limited to a maximum of 30,000
square feet. He hopes to put in a larger store. The area needs local jobs. He
hopes to have offices in his commercial area, to develop a cohesive tax base for the
area.
Fleetwood asked the acreage. Staveland stated the request is for 25 acres.
He indicated the location on the map.
Brenner moved to recommend that the full Council docket the item.
Goodwin stated look at this item this year rather than next year. They are
already dealing with planning issues including the North Fork Community Center
and possibly accelerating the East County Subarea Plan. They will need to know
the development pattern of the area before working on the community center.
Motion carried unanimously.
DOCKET # 2005 -G: Toad Lake Area Rezone
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember McShane rejoined the meeting.)
Goodwin stated this is Councilmember McShane's proposal. She read the
description and indicated the location on the map. The area now is primarily
forested. There are aquifer recharge areas and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
There are not a lot of wetlands in the area. There are not many physical
constraints or steep slopes. There are no seismic hazard areas. There are a few
landslide hazard areas. There are few wetland areas and no wellhead protection
areas.
It is at the crest of a hill with good views. The area is within the water
district and water is available to the properties. This is a logical area from which to
designate transferable development rights. Services are available. Half the area is
in the Bellingham five -year review area.
Fleetwood asked why it was designated as an enclave to begin with.
Goodwin stated the existing zoning and parcel size dictated the designation.
Fleetwood stated it looks completely undeveloped. Goodwin stated there are
mostly five -acre lots and it is fairly undeveloped. There are not many houses there.
It does not meet criteria of a limited area of more intense rural development
(LAMIRD). The LAMIRD language was not adopted in 1997, and the area was
suburban zoning. At that time, the County Council did not want to downzone
properties. The area does have water and sewer lines. Based on those utilities, it
may meet the criteria.
Fleetwood asked if the Growth Management Hearings Board uses LAMIRD
criteria when looking at enclaves. Goodwin stated it does now, but not in 1997.
Fleetwood asked if it is conceivable that this enclave would be reviewed by
the Hearings Board, using LAMIRD criteria. Goodwin stated that is the rumor.
There is a legal issue about whether or not the County has to look at it, since it was
upheld by the court at one point. If the County does have to look at the area, it will
find the area does not meet the LAMIRD criteria.
Paul Isaacson, 204 Shallow Shores Road, stated he owns most of this
property. It clearly meets the requirements of the LAMIRD. A question is how one
can meet the definition of a LAMIRD if the one owns most of the area. He owns
most of this land. He developed the area up from Hillsdale into five acre tracts
without requesting an urban density, which would have been inappropriate since it
is in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
The committee just approved docketing property for commercial
development near the Mount Baker Highway that is in a scenic area where there is
no demand for business. However, he is on the border of town. That makes no
rational sense.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Isaacson stated the previous proposal is 30 miles out into a scenic area. He
just sold that land, which is a resource land that he harvested for timber. On Toad
Lake Road, there is public water. There are little to no critical areas on his
property, but there are UGA's in Birch Bay and Blaine, Lake Whatcom, Lake
Samish, and in shellfish areas. He doesn't have any critical areas to speak of on
this property. This area is not in the Lake Whatcom watershed. He's planned for
development with the Planning Department for ten years. He has been planning
good development and paid the fees for it. The roads have been installed. There
are five acres of development to the south. This is ridiculous. If this is a legal
issue and it needs to be downzoned, he should be subject to receiving transfers of
development rights (TDR's) at the very least. The level of expectation on this
property is overwhelming. This parcel is the best in the county for development.
There is not one parcel of that size or magnitude that could have as well - planned a
development with proper roads in an uncritical area, served by public services. A
LAMIRD doesn't apply because he owns everything. He owns 600 acres surrounded
by development. It's not true that this is a mostly undeveloped area. This area is
held as a proper block that can be developed with quality.
Brenner stated the Council should work with Mr. Isaacson and the City of
Bellingham to put this area in the Bellingham UGA. There are no sensitive areas.
It's a good place for development. It should not be downzoned. If they are going
to docket the item, docket for inclusion in the UGA.
Goodwin stated the portion of the property in the five -year review area is
already docketed for review as a possible UGA.
Isaacson stated the City asked him if he wanted to be in the UGA. He
specifically asked to not be in the UGA. He has a tree farm there. He doesn't want
to be subject to Bellingham's rules and their inability to run a timber harvest. The
City agreed. He doesn't want to be in the UGA because he doesn't want to do the
plat today, but that doesn't mean he should be downzoned, either.
Brenner stated that if the area will eventually be a part of the city, that's not
good zoning. She would like to see it be a lot denser zoning. If zoned and
developed at rural residential, two houses per acre (RR2), it would be impossible to
develop a denser development.
Isaacson stated there is no reason to look at this proposal, and lots of
reasons to leave it alone.
Fleetwood asked what single- ownership has to do with a LAMIRD, according
to the Growth Management Act. Isaacson stated they need to look at the bordering
development. If he didn't own the property, most of it would be developed by now.
Being held in one ownership prohibits anything.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fleetwood stated the area is a rural designation, does not have a rural
density presently. A LAMIRD is defined by the outer logical, built boundary.
McShane stated this property fits. The LAMIRD is too large and expansive.
The purpose of LAMIRD is to preserve rural character. It also applies to
maintaining areas at rural levels of density so, when the time is necessary, a UGA
can expand into it. He agreed that this area could be appropriate for urban levels
of development at some point in the future. However, this LAMIRD is too large.
It's clear there is expectation that one could develop without a lot of effort because
there is sewer and water. He's not fond of the LAMIRD issue. It's not critical for
resource protection. Unless there is a moratorium to prevent this from being
developed, which he is not interested in, the County should prevent this from being
split up in the meantime. Development rights could go with this land and
transferred elsewhere, as part of this application.
Brenner stated they went through court with this, and it was upheld. She
has no incentive to downzone this property at all. It may eventually be part of the
city. It won't be heavily developed in the meantime. The property met the criteria
when it went to court. Make sure the owners gets the full appraised value if the
County takes it.
Fleetwood stated there are good arguments on both sides. It appears to be
a density in the rural area that is not a rural density. However, he agrees this isn't
a place where they're trying to preserve certain important amenities. It's an area
that happens to be right next to the city. It will be reviewed for future urban
density. He will oppose docketing this area at this time. He is interested in
knowing the City's position. There are limited resources this year. They can't
docket everything.
McShane stated this area, under its current zoning, is zoned for a very large
suburban level of development. It meets every definition of why the Growth
Management Act was triggered and why the LAMIRD criteria was crafted. This is
sprawl at its greatest. They are half -acre and two -acre lots built out immediately
next to the city.
Fleetwood moved to recommend to the full Council that this item be
docketed.
Motion failed 1 -2 with McShane in favor.
DOCKET # 2005 -H: Chuckanut Area Rezone
Fleetwood stated this item would be taken up in two weeks.
OTHER BUSINESS
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 2/8/2005, Page 18